This is based on the 20% number Lou posted. According to punditsguide.ca, in the last federal election the NDP got 25.6% of the vote in Edmonton.

ETA: I wonder if Mulcair shouldn't pull a visit to Lethbridge. He didn't make it there during the last leadership campaign and the NDP locally (they have a star candidate/campaign) could use the boost. Mulcair could use the ocassion announce an NDP renewal conference (like Ashton suggested) or caucus retreat to take place in the city. I think it's something Jack would have done.

Lorne Gunter has written an article in the Edmonton Sun called: Redford-Alberta's First NDP Premier.

I won't link to it because the article is garbage. He complains that Redford announced new monies for education in the middle of the campaign and says this shows Redford's love of big government. Nevermind that every PC leader, especially King Ralph, has done that in every campaign. During some campaigns they would sometimes announce money for health and education, that had it no been received, the provincial health and education system would have had to default on their bills. It's an old shell game Gunter was all too happy to praise in the past. He is water-carrying for the WRA and has been doing it for months.

The point I did want to make though, is the headline of Gunter's article could help the NDP, especially seeing as it was published in Edmonton's working class paper. It gives the NDP credibility and also suggests the question: Why vote for a loser imitation (NDP Redford), when you can vote for the real thing? It fits with the NDP official opposition federally? Of course, if the NDP had ever had a premier in Alberta, they would have never looked like Redford. They would have been a red-blooded progressive like Grant Notley or Ray Martin or Pam Barrett or Raj Pannu or Brian Mason or maybe someday Rachel Notley. My guess is Lorne Gunter is trying to help drive the PCs vote down and the NDP vote up in Edmonton, to help the WRA (whose support is stronger in the South) get more seats than the PCs.

In a Globe op-ed today, "Stephen Harper's Wildrose soulmate," Garm Mason explains that "Like Mr. Harper, Ms. Smith is a graduate of the so-called Calgary School, the term ascribed to a group of neo-conservative economists and political scientists at the University of Calgary who have preached the wisdom of free markets and small government for years and who have helped nourish and guide conservatism in Western Canada for decades.

"Ms. Smith has an economics degree from the school and studied under arch-conservative economist Fred Atkins, who was Mr. Harper's thesis adviser. While there, she also got to know another of the school's more prominent lecturers, political scientist Tom Flanagan, who would play a major role in Mr. Harper's [political ascension. Mr. Flanagan is now running the Wildrose campaign.

"It was Mr. Flanagan who helped a much younger Ms. Smith get a jab at the Fraser Institute, the right-wing political think tank. NHot long after that, she established the Canadian property Rights Research Institute, an advocacy group for ranchers, farmers and rural landowners....'If you look up 'libertarian' on Wikipedia, there are about 12 different strands. Some have called me a moderate libertarian.' And she seems comfortable with that.'

And like Mike Harris, she's promising $300 cheques for every Albertan because people "can spend their own money better than the government."

---------

And that video, "Who taught the Wildrose how to be effective aganst the PCs" was obviously created by Wildrose as ammunition against the PCs.

Was it presented here to be instructive about the depths to which they will stoop? The Alberta School has imported its ideology and tactics from Chicago!

She said it would bypass the current “extended triage process” and direct simpler cases to care more quickly.

“It’s not about more money, but it’s about doing things differently,” she said...Paul Parks, the AMA’s past-president for emergency medicine, said his organization told the provincial health minister in a December letter that lack of acute-care beds and long-term-care facilities was the crux of the problem. In that letter, the AMA suggested the government abandon any fast-track proposal.

Redford is fighting against this: "The Wildrose Party has reignited the debate over two-tiered medicine in the province, embracing private health care for certain procedures as a way to alleviate long waiting times.

The party, which has soared into the lead in multiple polls, promised to allow patients the right to use private clinics – inside or outside the province – on the public dime if they have to wait longer than a set time for procedures, from cancer and cardiac care to diagnostic imaging and orthopedic surgery as well as cataract removal."

Private clinics on the public dime. Sort of like Ontario's "rupture" clinic.

Where should one counter the Wildrose messages, so appealing to the self-obsessed?

The election prediction looks horrible for progressives or at least to me. The result looks like it is going to be a WRA majority and the PC's being the official opposition. So my question is there a point of having so many progressive parties in Alberta? Maybe they should merge or hold joint nominations. Then at least they would have a chance. Right now we have the NDP, Evergreens (Green party), Liberals, and Alberta party, and all are below 20%.In my opinion i think having one party would work and help to elect more progressives, until the voting system hopefully changes one day to proportional representation.

The election prediction looks horrible for progressives or at least to me. The result looks like it is going to be a WRA majority and the PC's being the official opposition. So my question is there a point of having so many progressive parties in Alberta? Maybe they should merge or hold joint nominations. Then at least they would have a chance. Right now we have the NDP, Evergreens (Green party), Liberals, and Alberta party, and all are below 20%.

In my opinion i think having one party would work and help to elect more progressives, until the voting system hopefully changes one day to proportional representation.

You cannot make assumptions about why people vote for particular political parties. People have their own reasons for voting Wildrose, PC, Liberal, NDP, or Evergreen, and it's a fools game to think that you could win by having parties agree to not run against each other and that would make them stronger, or even that all the voters would line up.

Besides, I think you are a bit pessimistic. The polls I've seen basically have the PCs and Wildrose between 30-40% of the vote. I don't see how any party wins a majority in this scenario. The NDP are polling very well in Edmonton City, and there are a great many seats there. And I would suspect that a great deal of suppport for the Wildrose is simply based on a "throw-out-the-PCs" sentiment. I suspect that Wildrose support may start to stall with the issue of conscience rights and health care, specifically because it touches a nerve on the issue of Ralph Klein's "third way" which caused a popular uproar.

In a campaign that has so many parties frantically fighting for their political lives, Mason seems to be floating above the fray. It's as if the Natural Law party has re-turned to politics with promises of yogic flying but this time it actually works.

Quote:

Mason is the one leader who seems to be genuinely enjoying himself. He is arguably one of the best-performing MLAs in the legislature, if not the best, and he's the only current leader of a political party who has been through an election campaign at the helm. The NDP has been performing consistently well in public opinion polls the past year, and both Mason and fellow NDP MLA Rachel Notley are seen as virtually bullet-proof in their home ridings. The party has high hopes to win more seats in Edmonton, including Edmonton-Manning and Edmonton-Calder.

New Democrats are horning in on traditional Liberal territory by being less stridently political and more politically pragmatic.

Police were called to a North Edmonton home Saturday evening after a physical altercation between the homeowner and a Progressive Conservative candidate.

Precisely what happened, however, isn't clear.

Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk was door-knocking in his north Edmonton riding of Castle Downs Saturday when he was, according to the PC party, “assaulted by a constituent.” But the homeowner told reporters he shoved Mr. Lukaszuk to get him off his property.

“I grabbed him by the sweater and turned him around and started pushed him off my property,” Al Michalchuk, a Wildrose supporter, told CTV. “And he still, he would turn around and he wouldn't leave.”

Besides, I think you are a bit pessimistic. The polls I've seen basically have the PCs and Wildrose between 30-40% of the vote. I don't see how any party wins a majority in this scenario.

Very easily. In Alberta when one party wins the province-wide popular vote by even a modest single digit margin, they tend to "run the tables" when it comes to seats. In the last AB election that led to a change of gov't in 1971, the PCs under Lougheed only beat Social Credit by a modest 46% to 41% margin - but in the seat count the PCs took 49 seats and SC just took 25!

Similarly in the 1993 election the PCs under Klein only narrowly beat the Alberta Liberals under Lawrence Decore 44% to 40% - but in seats the PCs won 51 seats to the Liberals 33.

Mark my words, if the WRA wins the popular vote by 4% or more - they will probably get a majority and with a double digit popular vote lead, they could win a landslide in tersms of seats.

@NorthReport... hmmm, and I was going to write pointing out that their voter compass was actually bordering on being accurate this time (I got 84% convergence with the ANDP) - of course I do not know how they are differentiating between the Liberals and the PCs.

In the last election, the NDP got about 16% in greater Edmonton (18% in the city itself), winning two seats and narrowly losing two more. This time, the NDP is up 7% and there are better vote splits shaping up.

In the last election, the NDP got about 16% in greater Edmonton (18% in the city itself), winning two seats and narrowly losing two more. This time, the NDP is up 7% and there are better vote splits shaping up.

The gap between the Con and Wildrose is large enough that you may also be able to avoid "strategic voting." The NDP is almost in second place.

In the last election, the NDP got about 16% in greater Edmonton (18% in the city itself), winning two seats and narrowly losing two more. This time, the NDP is up 7% and there are better vote splits shaping up.

The gap between the Con and Wildrose is large enough that you may also be able to avoid "strategic voting." The NDP is almost in second place.

The flip side of that could see Wildrose supporters voting strategically for the PCs to stop the NDP.

To stop the NDP from what exactly? I just don't see anyone doing that kind of math. I think the NDP will do well this election but considering they currently have 2 seats it's hard to envision a scenario where they could do worse. If anything I'd think it more likely that a WRA supporter, especially in Edmonton, would vote strategically for the NDP to stop the PC's from winning one more seat. Far as I know the NDP only wins seats in Edmonton and maybe Calgary, for whatever reason they don't seem to win outside of the big cities.

Anyways some polls out now have the PC's tied with the WRA. I still think the PC's will hold on for one more election victory. At the end of the day I think a lot of people will go into the voting booth and end up saying "Why rock the boat? I'm doing OK under the PC's. Why take a chance with this new party?"

I guess if I was the NDP, I would look for opportunities to get away with the "we're in second place in Edmonton" argument. That way, the NDP can be the voice for change, if people want it, in Edmonton.

Strategic voting in this next election is going to be either for or against the WRA. They are the lightning rods of this campaign. In Edmonton, a strategic vote to throw the PCs out might actually be an NDP vote. For instance, the NDP has a chance to pick off a PC incumbent in Edmonton-Glenora.

Far as I know the NDP only wins seats in Edmonton and maybe Calgary, for whatever reason they don't seem to win outside of the big cities.

The 1986 and 1989 elections were the apex of NDP support in Alberta. In those two elections, the NDP won two seats in Calgary and the ridings of Stony Plain (near Edmonton) and Vegreville; as well Athabasca-Lac La Biche was won in 1986 and West Yellowhead was won in 1989.

Mainly due to vote splitting & a prominent candidate. PC incumbent, former Liberal MLA, former NDP leader, Mayoralty runner up as the Wildrose candidate. Even the Alberta Party candidate is a former interim leader of the party. Might be able to win with under 30%.

The debate tonight could very well give the Alberta NDP a boost. The NDP often (not always) gets a boost just from having the publicity alone. The NDP's ideas are not as unpopular as the party's polling numbers suggest. It's also a story of no one noticing the NDP('s ideas). Most Albertans will not watch the debates, but some will, and the media will certainly be tuned in and report on it.